The Simon Winder CBn Interview

This month saw the release of a new entry into the long list of books analysing the phenomenon of James Bond. In The Man Who Saved Britain: A Personal Journey into the Disturbing World of James Bond, author Simon Winder takes a unique approach, addressing the impact of James Bond on the collective conscience of a mid-century Britain reeling from involvement in two world wars. It is Mr. Winder’s contention that agent 007 played a hugely significant role in healing the wounds suffered in these hard times. Employing an enjoyably witty style, the author does not shy away from criticism of either the literary or cinematic incarnations of James Bond. And he pulls no punches when it comes to analysing the various political, military and social movements in postwar Britain. I will not be reviewing the book here, but I urge anyone who has any interest in James Bond or the developing history of Britain to pick up a copy and give it a read. One might not agree with all of Mr. Winder’s points of view, but one is very likely to be entertained, and perhaps even informed.

First off, welcome to CommanderBond.net, Mr. Winder.

Thanks very much. It’s a pleasure to be taking part.

Whom did you have in mind as an audience for this material?

Scarcely sane obsessives such as myself. I have spent so many hours watching the movies and reading the books that I thought it about time to put this to some use; and I recognised that at least I was not alone in my interests.

The book seems fraught with cynicism and pessimism, and yet is filled to the brim with humour. At one point you posit: ‘As the 1960s progressed, Bond’s ability to maim and kill foreigners became a great consolation to millions of embittered and confused people whose traditional world picture had changed with alarming speed. Bond in fact became in the 1960s pretty much the only British national capable of damaging anybody at all.’ How is that line supposed to make us feel?

I thought it would be fun to say various more or less terrible things in a breezy and cheerful style to see how people reacted. I am glad you picked on this quote as it sums it up. This is just popularized (and probably misunderstood by me) film theory, but I think everyone, if they think about it, should feel very odd about the way they can watch hundreds of simulated killings on a film screen and view it as entertaining. I also think it odd and appropriate that Britain, which has always had a cult of glamorous violence (a quick trip around St Paul’s Cathedral shows this very clearly, packed with superb white marble statues of homicidal maniacs, some might say), should generate a figure such as Bond who does indeed keep up the
‘good work’.

What do you say to the criticism that the essential premise of the book—that James Bond helped ease Britain’s painful transition from the glory of Empire to the dark days of rationing and political blundering—is not novel?

It certainly is not new—several writers such as David Cannadine have pointed it out many years ago. I just thought it was a useful peg around which it might be fun to sound off about British history and about Bond—the excuse around which the book could be built. Most of the UK reviews have been extremely positive, but one (in the Evening Standard) was completely baffled by the suggestion that there was any link between Bond and imperial decline—so perhaps it is not an entirely cliched idea—at least to one reviewer.

Speaking of reviews, you must be pleased that The Man Who Saved Britain has received good notices overall. And whether a given reviewer liked the book or not, the commentary has been interesting, to say the least. A few examples:

A book of eccentric brilliance that covers everything from Jamaica as lieu de memoire to the sexual magnetism of General Nasser.

TIMES LITERARY SUPPLEMENT

Hugely amusing… a bizarre mix and yet a weirdly compelling one.

THE OBSERVER

Poor Bond is little more than a prop to Winder’s obsession with the evils of Empire… and his desire to denigrate Britain’s intelligence services.

Stella Rimington, former head of MI5, TIMES

What do you make of the Rimington comments?

Isn’t that great? She was so furious—I think the bit I wrote about the security services just sitting around watching CNN or drunkenly photocopying their bottoms was the last straw. The book’s meant to be funny—but Dame Stella certainly didn’t think so.

At one point you detail what was perhaps the last gasp of British colonialism, a tragic-comic episode in which ‘the RAF proposed a base on Aldabra—an uninhabited island off East Africa, home only to some 15,000 giant tortoises. This idea was scrapped on both finance and common-sense grounds. I love the brief Aldabra debate as it now stands so beautifully as a summary of the last, flickering gleams of an imperial mindset that had seemed utterly solid only twenty years previously. It was a dream of an absolutely pointless airstrip on a tropical island with no human inhabitants and therefore—at last—no troublesome nationalists, but unfortunately only useable for bombing runs against some putative Madagascan or Antarctic enemy. Presumably a substantial ground crew would have been needed just to keep the airstrip tortoise-free.’ Throughout the book, you cast a critical lens on British political manoeuvering. Were you ever worried that in being so critical of Britain, you might deny yourself a wider audience?

Well, it has certainly angered a few people quite vigorously so far. I think the serious point behind the book (or semi-serious) is that Britain has had much more ferocious an impact on the world than British people like to think. I wanted to use the book to emphasise, and indeed rub people’s faces in, the limits of Britain as a ‘good guy’ in the way that Bond personifies. In the end Britain has liberal instincts and has behaved more morally than many other countries, but that’s only part of the story and often a late part. I was reading today about the aftermath of the Indian Mutiny of 1857 where in Allahabad, for example, some 5,000 Indians were summarily executed just to show who was boss. Britain was the principal beneficiary of the slave trade for many years. British settlers around the world have destroyed whole societies. The more I read about the British Empire the more we appear normally horrible—and yet it is crucial to Britain’s self-esteem to be better and nobler. People will disagree with me but I don’t see their arguments—I’m never happier than wandering around North America, but I think it is just a bit odd not to admit that the whole society of Canada and the US is based on expropriation and violence—much of it British-sourced.

The Man Who Saved Britain is not just a rant on the fall of the British Empire. It’s, thankfully, also a lot about James Bond and his creator. You are at times critical of Ian Fleming, The Man, but you seem to have a genuine affection for a good deal of his literary output, citing From Russia With Love, Dr. No and Goldfinger as his best. In analysing Rosa Klebb, Dr. No and Goldfinger, you come to the conclusion that: ‘[T]here
is something authentically nightmarish about these new inventions—partly pantomime, partly myth. They are expressionist in the sense that they can only make grand gestures.’ On the other hand, you maintain that The Spy Who Loved Me is a transparent and poor attempt to write from a feminine point of view (this despite the ‘gratification’ that particular book brought you in your adolescence). Can you articulate a general feeling about the merits of the books?

In the end I just feel such affection and respect for the books that it is impossible to be mean. I was so hard on The Spy Who Loved Me in the spirit of all fans who have to attack something just to prove somehow that actually they are not fans. The books simply do not stand up as completely realized novels—they have too many poor patches and are too hastily written. But I do seriously think that real art can come out of such surroundings—that, as with films, particular scenes are enough to float the rest. Comparing to Shakespeare is silly, but it is fair to point that there are chunks of any of the plays which are kind of hopeless or not funny or involving or anything. It is perhaps true too of Fleming—that when he’s really on fire (the shoot-out in the aquarium in Live and Let Die, Oddjob smashing up Goldfinger’s mansion—does anyone on-line have any specific favourite moments?) he’s fantastically memorable and good.

You don’t have much time for Kingsley Amis or John Gardner, and you don’t even mention John Pearson, Christopher Wood, Raymond Benson or Charlie Higson. Is it safe to say you are a fan of Fleming, but not the continuation authors?

I read the Kingsley Amis and thought it so bad that it didn’t seem worthwhile to read anything further—but that could well have been a mistake. If anyone thinks that there is one really worth reading I’d be happy to give it a try.

If you were that unimpressed by Amis, I wouldn’t think you’d find much joy in the later continuation novels. But you might take a peek at John Pearson’s James Bond: The Authorised Biography Of 007, and Christopher Wood’s novelisation of The Spy Who Loved Me is surprisingly good. You might also give the Young Bond books a go. Many adult fans were sceptical when IFP first announced this series, but most of us have been won over by the first two books in the series.

I think Young Bond is wonderful and Higson a genius—these books really fell outside my own book’s remit, but they certainly show there is an amazing amount of life left in Bond, even if the official arteries now seem a bit clogged.

Do you consider yourself a fan of the James Bond films? At one point in the book, you clearly indicate that you feel the first four are really the only good ones. Specifically addressing your interests in the films, you state: ‘I admire Ken Adam and John Barry and the early films’ writers, editors and directors. But even on the central, indeed sacral, issue of Sean Connery himself it is hard to develop specifically devotional feelings.’ But you later state you make every premiere, and that you’ll be there for the opening night showing of Casino Royale. Explain.

In the end of course I love all the films—once. I think most of the later films just do not stand up to repeat viewings and once you know that Bond is going to get into, say, an invisible car or that he is going to say ‘Christmas comes but once a year’ it is pretty hard not to think there might be better DVDs in the shop. I’m really struck by the ability (or my ability at any rate) to watch the early films over and over again and find so much to enjoy—they are very complete worlds. The later films do not really, to me anyway, seem to have much of a leg up over many other action films.

You seem very critical of yourself for loving the Roger Moore films so much in your adolescence. But does it not seem that in Roger’s Bond, moreso than any other, British colonialism is glamourously alive and well?

This is a very good point and one made by a reviewer last weekend who pointed out that surely the real logic of my position is warmly to embrace Sir Roger as he in far purer form defines the general daftness of Britain. Connery is oddly good and plausible (and Scottish) whereas Moore’s Englishness and tongue-in-cheek pseudo-suavity makes a far better case in a more direct way for Britain’s ongoing sense of itself. I’ve definitely missed a trick by not admitting this to be the case.

All Bond fans have ‘pet’ films or books—those which, although the quality of the art may be relatively low, one just cannot help loving. Which are yours?

A very fine question. I would have to say that chunks of Diamonds are Forever do seem very appealing to me, although as a film it is clearly a real mess. The entire structure came from a bad moment of flailing about by the producers after Lazenby’s departure. Fleming’s book simply supplied some key details—the diamond ‘pipeline’ and the gay killers and Las Vegas—but was too poorly plotted and unambitious to work as a script. There was even a desperate plan to make Bond into an American and bring back Gert Frobe to play Goldfinger’s twin brother hiding in the Las Vegas hotel. Not a good idea. Even as finally done it’s a depressing ruin—that Moon Buggy, Blofeld in drag, Miss Moneypenny appearing for only 5 seconds dressed as a customs official. And Connery looks just too old (aside from suffering from early ’70s clothing issues). And yet, and yet: Wint & Kidd are terrific, it is one of Barry’s best scores, it has some wonderful Ken Adam sets, the fight in the glass elevator is exceptional, the opening credits a treat on a big screen. It’s enough—I’m happy.

George Lazenby comes in for some rough treatment in The Man Who Saved Britain. Any words for those who feel he’s quite good in the role?

Well, I have a real sympathy for them. We would all agree I think that OHMSS is the Bond film most argued about. It is the most slavishly loyal to Fleming’s original (even more so than Dr No), it is the most serious, the most carefully acted. The music is superb and everyone would agree that Peter Hunt’s directing is often exceptional. I just think that in the end Lazenby is distressingly uninvolving—that he is asked to act all kinds of scenes (tenderness, comedy) which are just way beyond him. If one could cut out all those and just have him in the action scenes then I agree he would be pretty good, but by the time you have got to those he has spent far too long camping it up (or failing to camp it up) as ‘Hilly’ in glasses and a kilt. What music though. And if we are to see Blofeld at all (which I prefer not to) then let’s have him played by Telly Savalas.

Who’s your favourite Bond Girl?

Well, it really has to be Luciana Paluzzi, the villainess in Thunderball—she’s a hopeless actress, but whatever. Having castigated Lazenby for his acting skills, I’m more than happy hypocritically to let Luciana off the hook.

You express reverence for most of John Barry’s Bond scoring, but you have some harsh words for the Moonraker score. I rather like that one, especially that quintessentially ’70s waah-waah bit when Bond first arrives in Rio. It may be slightly trashy, but it’s John Barry trashy!

Very true—I just hate the film too much to engage with the music very much—I can hardly hear the music I’m so angry about James Bond in Outer Space or that terrible fight with a plastic anaconda. I need to watch it again—perhaps with the screen covered and just listening to the soundtrack. The bit in the music where the space station is unveiled I think is just magnificent—classic Barry.

You express bafflement at Bond’s worldwide popularity, in light of the resentment you imagine the rest of the world must feel toward Britain (for its excesses in the days of Empire). Is it possible the rest of the world looks at Bond as just an extremely cool secret agent, without focusing much on the fact that he’s British?

Yes: definitely. I just thought it was funny (in a childish way) to think how offensive in all kinds of ways he could be viewed as being if you were a sensitive patriot. I left this out of the book (I left a lot of stuff out luckily) but apparently in Udaipur they have videos showing Octopussy everywhere and everyone is really pleased and proud that the film was made there—and of course there is a James Bond Island in Thailand in honour of The Man with the Golden Gun, which was damaged I think in the tsunami. So here are two on the face of it, just possibly not very good and rather offensive movies which have in fact just caused pleasure locally. Surely some people must be wound up though: I’d be surprised to find black Americans thrilled with Live and Let Die or white southerners come to that.

With respect to the popularity of the Bond films, you wrote: ‘Their success in America seems straightforward enough: they are viewed as comedies of self-delusion’, indicating that you feel American audiences view Britain as some kind of laughing stock. But, again, there is an argument to be made that Americans dig Bond because he is so damn cool, irrespective of his Britishness; and that Americans (at least that dwindling percentage who possess any significant knowledge of history) look upon Britain as having nobly survived the wars and loss of empire, whilst maintaining its collective dignity. Thoughts?

Well, I’m sorry you have raised that sentence. I lived in America for some years and my wife is American and I put that in as a private joke really. I saw Four Weddings and a Funeral in New York when it came out and found it unwatchable because all the laughter around me appeared to be at the expense of my country (‘ha! ha! what idiots’) and I eventually had to leave it was so embarrassing. But of course all those New Yorkers just thought it was funny. And it’s the same with the Bond films. Also, to be honest, I did put in several sentences like the above just because I thought that by making such a claim it would completely enrage some British readers. And judging from some comments I have had already, it’s worked.

Here’s an interesting passage from your book: ‘[W]hat is odd about the sixties in the shape of ‘the sixties’ was that virtually the entire population were in practice excluded—too old, too young, too poor, too busy. This is clearly the case with the James Bond films. These are the fantasies of older men—fantasies of the war, of British greatness, of military service, of class distinctions. What has ‘the sixties’ to do with exclusive golf clubs, knowing what wine to drink with fish, with Venetian hotel suites? The answer of course is a great deal for an older, wealthy generation who felt the whole country was going to the dogs.’ And yet so many of us became Bond fans in our adolescence. Care to play psychologist with that one?

This section is part of an attempt here by a number of historians (including, for example, Dominic Sandbrook) to convert ‘the sixties’ into a proper bit of history—not simply a place where everyone’s grooving around and taking soft drugs. I think it must be fine though for later generations to buy into what was in reality a pretty confused melange of different overlapping generations. Perhaps my favourite scene in any Bond film is the meal on the Orient Express where Grant gives himself away by asking for red wine with his fish.

In reference to that same ‘sixties’ passage, can you go into further depth in regards to your comment about virtually the entire population being ‘excluded’? I’d always understood the sixties to have been quite an inclusive time. What do you know that I don’t?

I just think that most people were not really involved. My dad was the same age as John Lennon but for him, like millions of others, the sixties had no specific meaning—he simply went to work and helped look after a young family. Dominic Sandbrook in his wonderful Never Had It So Good points outthat most of the kids who in the mid 1950s trashed cinemas during the ‘Rock Around The Clock’ riots were working in factories and having children by thetime the Beatles came along and were not part of Beatlemania, which was the next echelon’s business. By ‘excluded’ I mean really that they were looking in other directions and doing nothing very much with a ‘sixties’ flavour. Sandbrook’s theory, which I’m sure is right, is that the period is so dominated by a specific atmosphere because it has been constantly
mythologised by a bright bunch of people working in the media who came to the fore in the 1960s: and so records and clothing styles and television programmes which were in practice ignored by most of the population (or actively hated) have been endlessly revisited. It’s not that this is illegitimate—it’s just that there are lots of other things going on too.

I’ll contemplate the mythologisation of ‘The Sixties’ and segue right into your take on main title designer Maurice Binder: ‘He was one of those richly enjoyable figures from a different world whose very specialized skills in manipulating buttocks against coloured backgrounds earned him a unique niche in film history.’ I don’t really have a question here. I just wanted to repeat that lovely line.

I’m glad you like it!

Is that the final cover art for the American edition?

I’m not sure—as far as I know it is—swell painting don’t you think?

Indeed. Do you have any plans for any further Bond-related books in the future?

That’s probably it. I have lots of spare material and keep thinking of things I’m annoyed I missed out—and things I’m annoyed I left in come to think of it. I’m trying to work out what to write next—but I always plan to write about Bond issues. He’s my first love.

Just to be clear, although you are often critical of Fleming, the Bond books and films, you are a big fan, right?

Oh a massive fan. I was in the car yesterday and, as usual, stuck the
Goldfinger theme onto the CD player. It immediately brought it all back—those marvellous opening credits, with the gold tinted sneak previews of various scenes—fantastically stylish like almost everything in that film—and all thanks to Fleming. I’m disappointed by the later films, but I don’t think those really infect the earlier achievements—a batch of superb books (I reread Dr No last week as I’ve written a new introduction to the UK edition—Just Great) and at least 3 or 4 of the best of all ’60s films. definitely a fan.

Mr. Winder, thanks so much for your time. Do you have any last words for us?

Just that your website is seriously interesting and a fascinating resource. It’s great to know there are so many rather terrifyingly well-informed people out there who will no doubt be scouring my book and coming up with an ever bigger running total of gross errors.

The Man Who Saved Britain: A Personal Journey into the Disturbing World of James Bond is available at Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com

To discuss this interview visit this thread in CBn’s General Literature forums.

The CBn Dossier, April '06

Welcome to the May 2006 CBn Dossier, a wrap-up of all the James Bond news and rumours from the past month. In this dossier we’ll be taking a look at the reams of recent book-release announcements, some exciting news for dvd collectors, a mixed bag for gamers, and a couple of really big developments from the producers of Casino Royale.

This month’s CBn Dossier is provided by Blair Pettis (who apologises for the slight tardiness of this report).

Enjoy.

Casino Royale Teases Us Twice

The big stories which broke over the past weekend were the release of a teaser poster and teaser trailer for the upcoming Casino Royale film. The teaser poster art was first revealed on a Finnish website linked to the official James Bond website, and CBn’ers promptly registered a near unanimous cry of approval. CBn sources have confirmed that this is an official release. The moody, atmospheric image artfully evokes the stench and smoke and sweat of a casino at three in the morning. And Daniel Craig’s sidelong glance says James Bond is back indeed.

The collective burst of glee in response to the poster art was soon followed by an even more uproarious delight when fans caught a look at a new Casino Royale teaser trailer. First revealed on the French televsion show CINESIX (airing on French channel M6), a 59-second version of the trailer became widely available for viewing on website planete007.com. And what a piece of work it is. Twenty-odd seconds of black and white footage cryptically reveal what appear to be some of the film’s early moments, including Bond tussling with baddies and verbally sparring with M. Then, all of a sudden, there is Craig as Bond in a familiar spinning motion, a shot is fired in the direction of the camera, a sea of red douses the frame—gunbarrel redux? Oh, my. And a nice segue to the colour footage, which, in the manner of all modern action film trailers, is a supercharged, edit-fest of heroic ballet. We see: gunplay; knives; X-ray tech; Parkour; explosions; the Aston Martin db5; beautiful women clad in elegant dresses and sexy swimsuits; and a hint of macabre villainy. But mostly, it is Bond. And it looks to be, by nearly all accounts, very good Bond. [Note: those wishing to remain absolutely spoiler free will need to abstain from watching the trailer. But as one who is trying hard to avoid spoilers, I can report that the trailer doesn’t really spoil much. I imagine any and all Bond fans will be pleased to have watched it, and will not feel spoiled.]

While the response to the trailer has been overwhelmingly positive, there has been a smattering of the old complaints about Craig’s suitability, and a few fans have expressed worry that the trailer looks a bit Die Another Day, when Eon has promised something fresh. After seeing the trailer, this writer has faith in Eon’s pledge.

More Casino Royale News

CBn has confirmed that shooting on Casino Royale is scheduled to conclude in the Czech Republic in May of this year. Director Martin Campbell will grab the final shots in the spa town of Karlovy Vary, which is doubling Montenegro.

In other CR news, the Ivory Coast’s Isaach de Bankole has been cast as Obanno, one of the villains associated with Le Chiffre. Mr. de Bankole recently completed filming on the big screen adaptation of Miami Vice.

And finally, congrats to ITV, which just this month secured the television broadcast rights to Casino Royale, and the rest of the James Bond library. Fans will reportedly have to wait until late 2007, at the earliest, for Casino Royale to air on the telly.

Young Bond

Moving on to the literary Bond, bibliophiles were treated to a virtual tidal wave of announcements of forthcoming material. In particular, there was a lot of news on the Young Bond front. It was announced that author Charlie Higson will be making two promotional appearances in Great Britain in May of this year. Make sure to bring your copies of SilverFin and Blood Fever for signing. Mr. Higson is A-class entertainment for Bond fans, judging by his recent appearance at Foyles’ bookstore. CBn’s Matt Weston was on the case and filed a very engaging report full of juicy bits of info. To wit, Mr. Higson has completed work on the third book in the series which takes place in London, the fourth book in the series will feature Mexico and the Carribean as primary locations, and IFP was approached in regards to movie rights by the likes of Steven Spielberg. Wow.

April also saw the release of the US paperback and audiobook editions of SilverFin, and the international editions just keep on coming.

Books, Books, and More Books

There are no less than four non-fiction books devoted to 007 on the horizon, and these are no lightweight fan fawns, either. A positively ambitious array of academic ink is being spilled in James Bond’s name this year. First up, The Man Who Saved Britain, by Simon Winder is slated for a UK release on the 2nd of June, 2006. This book is being promoted as a unique history of postwar Britain as seen through the lens of Bond fandom. An intriguing premise to say the least. Should be interesting to see how this turns out. Pre-order now from Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.com.

Hot on the heels of that is The Science of James Bond: From Bullets to Bowler Hats to Boat Jumps, the Real Technology behind 007’s Fabulous Films by Lois H. Gresh and Robert Weinberg. Initially set for an April launch, this will now be available the 25th of August, 2006. Devotees of Q-branch should feast on this look at the gadgets, cars and other technological wonders of James Bond’s world. It even has an introduction by Raymond Benson. Available for Pre-order now.

For those hungry for more scholarly analysis of Bond-dom, September will bring another goodie in the form of James Bond and Philosophy, by James B. South and Jacob M. Held. In this ambitious tome ‘15 witty, thought-provoking essays discuss hidden issues in Bond’s world, from his carnal pleasures to his license to kill. Among the lively topics explored are Bond’s relation to existentialism, including his graduation “beyond good and evil”; his objectification of women; the paradox of breaking the law in order to ultimately uphold it like any “stupid policeman”; the personality of 007 in terms of Plato’s moral psychology; and the Hegelian quest for recognition evinced by Bond villains.’ Phew! Pre-order it now: Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk.

After that, readers may be grateful for something a tad lighter. Although the title belies it, James Bond in the 21st Century: Why We Still Need 007, may just fit the bill. While details are in sparse supply at this point, early reports indicate this will be an anthological look at Bond from the perspective of pop culture. Here’s hoping that author Glenn Yeffeth’s work is smart, thoughtful, insightful, and a great bit of fun. Available for Pre-order now.

Any mystery as to whether the book release accompanying the release of the Casino Royale film would be a novelisation or a tie-in was solved on the 2nd of April by The Young Bond Dossier, which revealed that a paperback movie tie-in is scheduled for release on 16, October, 2006. Thanks to the zencat (aka John Cox) for the heads up.

Book collectors welcomed the mid-month release of the large print edition of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Distributed by the Thorndike Press, this book follows on from the large print release of Live and Let Die, this past February.

Comic Strip fans sang Titan Publishing’s praises, as Colonel Sun was released in the USA, and The Golden Ghost was released in the United Kingdom. These are in the book formats which Titan has been doing so well.

Gamers’ Highs and Lows

There was good news and bad news for fans of Bond gaming this past month. OK, you want the bad news first, right? CBn has learned that the Casino Royale video game from EA has been cancelled. At this time it is unclear whether EA will release another James Bond-themed video game in its stead. Reportedly, the cancellation was due in part to the fact that EA was unable to meet the deadline for a November release while still being able to match the game action to the film action.

On the brighter side, April saw the release of the Sony PSP platform of the Electronic Arts game, From Russia With Love. It’s still early, but so far the reviews have been mixed.

Ultimate DVD madness

Videophiles may have rejoiced at the announcement that a new set of James Bond Ultimate Edition dvd’s are scheduled to be released in the UK in July (no release date yet for the rest of the world). Perhaps a bit of a surprise to those who imagined that the next generation of Bond dvd’s would be either Blu-ray or HD-DVD, this collection nonetheless has some nice things to offer. First and foremost, the set of 40(!!!!) discs will come in a sleek silver attaché case with a subtle debossed 007 gun logo. Conjuring up memories of The World Is Not Enough, this case is one cool collectible in and of itself. And the dvd’s are sure to please as well. Can I mention again that there are reportedly 40 of them? Each film gets its own slipcase with new artwork, and containing one disk of the film and one for supplemental materials. All 20 films (Dr. No through Die Another Day) will be remastered and restored using a ‘breakthrough digital process’ by Lowry Digital, radically improving both picture and sound. They will all feature DTS 5.1 surround sound, and each will feature loads of new extras including ‘never before seen footage’ and ‘Top Secret Files’ on ‘The Bond Women’ and ‘Exotic Locations’. In a coup de grace, Sir Roger Moore will provide commentary for all his movies on a separate audio track. You can pre-order this collection from amazon.co.uk now.

Can’t wait until July for your Bond dvd fix? No problem. Coming in May, Silvascreen presents a History Channel special, James Bond Gadgets. Featuring in-depth looks at the Aston Martin db5 and Vanquish, the Bell Textron Jet Pack, Little Nellie, TWINE’s Q-boat and many more Bond gadgets, this is sure to please the gadgetmaster in your household. Currently available for pre-order now at amazon.co.uk.

The Impossibly Witty Job

If you’ve been around CBn for any time at all, you’ll surely be aware that there is no better read than one of professor Jacques Stewart’s dissertations. This past month we were treated to The Impossible Job: Doubleshot, Part IV of Jacques’ series of Raymond Benson book reviews. If you haven’t read it, please do so now. Even if the acerbic wit doesn’t give you a guilty giggle, the critical insights will educate and enchant.

The Paul Michael Kane CBn Interview

Earlier this month, CBn’s Devin Zydel published his most excellent interview with Paul Michael Kane, author and illustrator of 007: A Literary Dossier. Mr. Kane’s book, which saw a limited release in February, with a wider release set for sometime in the near future, is an analysis of the Bond-related works of Ian Fleming, Kingsley Amis, John Gardner, and Raymond Benson. If you haven’t read this interview yet, check it out.

That’s all for this month. Now hurry on, and watch that trailer again.

With over 500,000 posts and endless discussion topics, there has never been a better time to join the CBn Forums to discuss Casino Royale and all other James Bond topics. Registration is free and only takes a minute. It’s safe to say that as Bond fans, we have a lot to look forward to. As always, stay tuned to CBn for daily coverage of all things James Bond 007.

To discuss this month’s CBn Dossier visit this thread on the CBn Forums.

Related Links

• The CBn Dossier, March ’06
• The CBn Dossier, February ’06
• The CBn Dossier, January ’06
• The CBn Dossier, December ’05
• The CBn Dossier, November ’05
• The CBn Dossier, October ’05
• The CBn Dossier, Special Edition covering ‘Casino Royale’
• The CBn Dossier, September ’05
• The CBn Dossier, August ’05
• The CBn Dossier, July ’05
• The CBn Dossier, June ’05
• The CBn Dossier, May ’05
• The CBn Dossier, April ’05
• The CBn Dossier, March ’05
• The CBn Dossier, February ’05

CASINO ROYALE: SCRIPT REVIEW ONLINE

It seems ‘LatinoReview’ have acquired a copy of the script of the latest James Bond film Casino Royale. Claiming to hold a copy of the 112 page second set of revisions by Paul Haggis dated December 13, 2005.

At the demands of MGM/Eon, we cannot link to LatinoReview’s review.

Casino Royale is the 21st James Bond film produced
by franchise holders Eon Productions. The MGM/Columbia Pictures production
began shooting in January and is due for release worldwide on 17 November 2006.
Starring Daniel Craig as James Bond, it is currently being filmed in the Czech Republic,
the Bahamas, Italy and the UK.

Discuss this news in this thread on the CBn Forums, the largest James Bond forum on the internet. Many thanks to forum user “Shrublands” for the tip!

Young Bond Book 2: Blood Fever

Today CBn offers two reviews of Young Bond Book 2: Blood Fever by Charlie Higson. One review is by a 41-year-old Bond fan, the other from a 18-year-old fan. Does Blood Fever bridge the generation gap? Read and find out:

A More Mature Young Bond Review by John Cox Blood Fever takes a confident quantum leap into maturity and gives Bond fans of all ages one of the best James Bond novels yet written. [read more…]

On The Path To 007 Review by Devin Zydel Literary 007 fans are in for a real surprise with Charlie Higson’s Blood Fever. A dark and intense story awaits readers and the result is thrilling and enjoyable. [read more…]

Discuss these reviews in this thread in the CBn forums, the largest James Bond forum on the internet.

IGN Turns Up a 'Royale' Scoop

*** WARNING: ARTICLE CONTAINS SPOILERS ***

The reliable Stax over at IGN Filmforce has today scored a major scoop; a list of all the major characters in Casino Royale, along with casting requirements and status.

• Vesper – Late 20s to 30s, must be gorgeous. A Sienna Miller “type.” The most dramatic Bond girl yet.
• Main villain – Late twenties to mid-thirties. The filmmakers are said to be close to sealing a deal with an unnamed European actor. (This is presumably Le Chiffre, although IGN’s sources do not mention him by name.)
• Villain’s girlfriend – She must be sexy and dangerous. The filmmakers are understood to be seeking a name actress or a pop star.
• American CIA agent – Somewhere between 30 and 40 years old. Filmmakers are considering name actors. (Felix Leiter perhaps?)
• Solari – A commander in the Sudanese rebel army between 40 and 50 years old. Pop-star Seal has been linked to the role.
• Demetrius – A reckless Mediterranean in his forties. Sleazy sort who lives the high life as a gambler and money launderer.
• Solonge – Thirty-something spouse of Demetrius. European who shares her husband’s taste for the high life.
• Massus – Mediterranean heritage, pushing sixty. (Presumably based on the character of Mathis from the novel renamed to reflect the change of locale.)

Despite being only weeks away from shooting, Stax reports that all these roles have yet to be cast.

Head on over to IGN to read the entire article.

Casino Royale is the 21st James Bond film produced by franchise holders Eon Productions. The MGM/Columbia Pictures production begins shooting in January and is due for release worldwide on 17 November 2006. Starring Daniel Craig as James Bond, it will be filmed in the Czech Republic, the Bahamas, Italy and the UK.

Discuss this story at this thread of the CBn forums.

Reflections in a 'GoldenEye'

Continuing on in CommanderBond.net’s celebration of the 10-year anniversary of the 17th James Bond film, GoldenEye, is today’s article: Reflections in a GoldenEye. Members of the CBn Team have written about their experiences of first seeing Pierce Brosnan’s first 007 flick. All CBn members are encouraged to add their own reviews of GoldenEye in either the Countdown Review threads or in the discussion topic for this article. With that…

‘GoldenEye’ by: John Cox

In the mid ’90s I was trying to start a screenwriting career and somehow keep myself fed at the same time, so I had fallen a little out of Bondage. Sure, I still keep up on the latest news and read each John Gardner novel as they came out, but I didn’t much care for Licence To Kill and Bond 17 had several false starts, so I had lost my faith in the future of James Bond as a film franchise. Maybe there would be another movie, maybe not.

Then Brosnan became Bond and before I knew it there was a poster for GoldenEye starring me in the face and trailer that looked pretty darn good. However, I was philosophical. It was clearly going to be a new Bond for a new generation (I was little nervous about Bond running around with a machine gun in the trailer), so it may not contain that old intangible magic that I had come to expect. But that was my fault for getting old. I would see the movie and accept it for what it was.

Of course, I was still fan enough to go to the main showing at the biggest theater I could find, which was the Mann National in Westwood. It was unusually easy to wrangle several friends to come with me. Even non-Bond fans were eager to see GoldenEye (a good sign).

We got to the theater at least an hour early and already there was a line down the sidewalk. We grabbed our spot in line, and while our place was held, my friend Asbed and I ran across the street to a sports bar for a quick pre-show martini. Incredibly, the bartender had no idea how to make a Martini (and we’ve not in the sticks, we’re spitting distance from the Playboy mansion for crying out loud!). We talked him through it and sucked down two of worst martinis I’ve ever had in my life. We them darted across the street as the line began to move.

The theater was packed and some fans where dressed in Bondian costumes. We found dynamite seats dead center. I was both nervous and excited, and when the theaters went dark and the new UA logo came up, I really couldn’t believe I was going to see and new James Bond movie in 1995.

GoldenEye un-spooled and the audience laughed and cheered from gun barrel to closing credits. We cheered when he said “Bond, James Bond” and the rest of he audience cheered the fact that we were cheering.

After the movie we exited back out into Westwood (very crowded at this time of night) and my friends instantly turned to me for the verdict. Well, what did I think?

My verdict was then what it still is today; I couldn’t believe I just saw a full-on JAMES BOND movie! Everything that was hard to pull off they nailed. That old intangible magic was still there! Sure, I was a little thrown by the score and that low-key song at the end, but other than that, it was glorious. Pierce Brosnan IS James Bond (but that was never in doubt), and 007 returned for me in full force on the night of November 17, 1995.

‘GoldenEye’ by: Athena Stamos

I didn’t see GoldenEye on November 17, 1995. I saw the ad in the LA Times and was extremely excited both because of James Bond and…OMG Pierce Brosnan! But my mom barred me from seeing it because it was rated PG-13. I was 13 at the time and very upset. I ended up renting it one night from Blockbuster in 1997/98 (don’t remember which) while my mom was at choir practice. It’s one of my favorite James Bond films… possibly more of a favorite because I was rebelling against my mother.

‘GoldenEye’ by: Jacques Stewart

The first time I saw GoldenEye was – I forget the date – during the first week of its release; its qualities as a Bond film – what it says about itself – are less meaningful to me that what it said about me. Licence to Kill I had watched in the cinema as a fifteen-year-old, a child; GoldenEye I watched as an adult and a hell of a lot had happened in the interim. As a result, while I can remember being excited at the thought of going to see previous Bond films in the cinema, this… well, with the passage of time, with growing up, with becoming interested in other, better things, the prospect of GoldenEye left me totally neutral. It was just… there.

Why that should have been I didn’t know at the time, although I suspect that it’s probably that as a child, going to see a Bond film was probably the only occasion we would go to the cinema, and we all went as a family. In the interim years, at university, that stopped and perhaps I went to the cinema too often – and without my family – for it to be the subject of great – or any – excitement. Hence, when GoldenEye came along, it was just another film.

Or maybe I had grown out of it.

Accordingly, I watched it but with a nagging suspicion that things weren’t quite right, weren’t quite the same and – despite the abundance of things that could really only happen in a Bond film – this wasn’t quite James Bond. Or it wasn’t quite me watching James Bond; I still wonder whether the expectations of the film were expectations of myself and I’d rather take it out on the film than on me.

So I’ll do that. But I doubt it’ll help.

One can tick many boxes with GoldenEye and it comes up to scratch with its ingredients; however, there is a suspicion that this is exactly how they did write it, so it does come across as a going-through-the-motions film. It really didn’t do anything new, just warming-over some crowd-pleasing moments. I had changed. It… hadn’t. Perhaps that was to expect too much.

It seemed to be a series of compromises: far more noticeable, if not more abundant, product placement; a Bond who appeared to have few individual characteristics but playing it as a mix of everything else that had been before; a cast culled largely from British television, and as a result unexotic and oddly reminiscent of an end-of-series pantomime Christmas “special” of something else. The plot, in particular, seems like a spoof of Bond rather than the echt; Trevelyan’s scheme just won’t work. That’s not to suggest that Hitler in Space or hypnotising a gaggle of lovelies to respect chickens are remotely plausible but they are plausible whilst the film’s on. Trevelyan’s scheme failed the moment the exposition hit my head. All very poorly thought through, although I suspect that I may be more willing to criticise it because of my attitude to the film and its attitude to me…

Seemed to have been filmed for television, too – looks a bit “compressed”, lacking the spectacle of the others. And I remembered reading at the time, although this may have been a joke, that Bond’s total screentime comes in at under thirty minutes. Whether that’s true or not, there are gaps where not very much that is very interesting is happening. And certain aspects are dire: Jack Wade (couldn’t they at least have found a different actor?), the car (to announce the gadget and then show, fine; to not announce the gadget and then show, less so; to announce the gadget and then not use it – weird) and poor old Desmond Llewelyn, nothing against the chap personally, but it’s not a happy scene.

Its one innovation is what truly failed it for me; true, the audience knows they are watching a Bond film. The performers know that they are in a Bond film. However, here, the performers appeared to have been directed (and their parts written) to demonstrate that they are self-aware, that they knew what the audience knew. The female M seems to be an opportunity wasted for the hell of a few jokes and its point runs out long before the scene ends; the sexism references; the Freud-for-morons dialogue (despite this piece being full of it – spot the irony, gang) landing like a bellyflopping bus… the previous Greatest Hits kick-start, The Spy who Loved Me, is by far this film’s superior for, despite being considerably more fantastical and utter piffle, it is utter piffle played straight. GoldenEye is one long wink at the audience (and you can replace the vowel in “wink” if you want). Problem is, the more you convince the audience that you are exposing the Bond films as being a bit stupid, the more you expose the Bond film you are in. Less self-analysis would lead to less analysis. And the apparent tone of apologising for the lead character… a James Bond film that doesn’t like James Bond much. Odd.

I was expecting someone else. I was expecting James Bond. I was also expecting myself as a child, reacting as a child. Neither happened.

Things had changed, and in neither case for the better. I can’t blame GoldenEye for me getting older, but I can blame it for me thinking about getting older and as a result, it has an emotional impact on me which I wouldn’t have expected. Haven’t watched it for years. I suspect that it’s probably quite good. James Bond had returned.

But not for me.

‘GoldenEye’ by: Devin Zydel

GoldenEye is a very important James Bond film for me; quite simply, because it was the first one I ever saw. Bond fans always talk about what the one ‘thing’ was that got them into James Bond, and in my case it was GoldenEye. I remember seeing it at a cousin’s house one night with my family and was instantly hooked. It was full of action and pure excitement. Having to go before it was finished, I asked my cousin about the series and got a reply telling me about “Jaws”, “Oddjob”, etc. having no idea what those words meant.

The following day or so I went to my local Blockbuster and was very surprised to see some fifteen other Bond films available. I had no clue which to pick, and expected to see titles like “James Bond 007” as opposed to ones such as From Russia With Love and The Living Daylights. I ultimately ended up choosing The Man With The Golden Gun and I ended up becoming a Bond fan.

This is without a doubt one of those Bond films that never goes wrong when it comes to watching it with others. It’s no wonder that it’s often cited as the most popular and often talked about of the Pierce Brosnan films. It’s fun. GoldenEye may not be my favourite 007 film, but it is always enjoyable and I have found it to be a clear winner no matter who is watching it.

‘GoldenEye’ by: Charlie Axworthy

I had just began working as an executive assistant in the industry and, with it coming up, my employers kindly gave me the day off.

I actually had the “Bond Clause” in my employment contract for years to come.i.e. – I get the day of domestic release in the US off. Paid.

At the time, my Bond Girl was living in Vegas and I flew her out to LA. We met for dinner with my other partner in crime (004) and I had pre-bought the tickets.

Packed theater, great seats and Bond was back!

When the gunbarrel started, my Bond girl leaned in and taking my hand said “There’s enough energy corsing through you to power Vegas for a month.”

The audience ate it up, the movie relaunched the series, Pierce was finally Bond and delivered the goods.

We rounded up the evening at my apartment with a bottle of Bollinger identical – by chance – to the bottle shown in the DB5’s compartment.

A grand evening that night….and a great memory.

I’ll always know where I was on that date and time in my life.

Share your first experience of ‘GoldenEye’ in this thread on the CBn Forums.

‘GoldenEye’: 10 Years On

• ‘GoldenEye’ Convention and World Premiere

DANIEL CRAIG IS JAMES BOND

It’s official: Daniel Craig is the new James Bond!

Eon Productions and Sony Pictures Entertainment made the announcement today at a London press conference, ending more than 18 months of rampant speculation after four-time Bond Pierce Brosnan was dropped from the role in Feburary of last year.

The actor has been signed to a three-picture deal starting with the upcoming 007 film, Casino Royale.

Craig arrived at the press conference via speedboat escorted by the Royal Navy. “I’d like to thank the marines for scaring the shit out of me,” he joked.

The press conference was attended by Michael G. Wilson, Barbara Broccoli, and director Martin Campbell. Wilson said they looked at over 200 actors, but Craig was the only one they offered the film to. Campbell called his new Bond “fantastic.”

Craig said he found out on Monday that he had the role. “I need a drink,” was his first reaction. Craig then added, “Together, with Martin, I want to make the best film we can. The most entertaining film we can. And it’s not a question of redefining, but it’s a question of taking it somewhere maybe where it’s never gone before.”

Wilson confirmed that Casino Royale would be James Bond’s “first mission” as a double-oh agent and that the central relationship with the Bond Girl is more serious and will effect Bond’s character at the end. Campbell said it is “definitely a darker film, more character, less gadgets.”

The official Casino Royale logo (click to view) sat behind the filmmakers and star as they answered questions from the world press.

Daniel Craig’s road to Bond has been a curious one.

In April, the 37-year-old British actor was suddenly and mysteriously touted by media the world over as having landed the role. However, no official confirmation was forthcoming and reports later confirmed the Bond search was still ongoing.

Craig then revealed to IGN Filmforce that he had been offered the role by the studio, but not by Eon Productions. Later, trade paper The Hollywood Reporter claimed that Barbara Broccoli wanted Craig, but co-producer Michael G. Wilson did not. Craig is said to be a close personal friend of the Broccoli family.

Craig’s candidacy disappeared amid reports of younger candidates until CBn exclusively broke the news in its monthly podcast that Craig was back in serious contention for the role, despite comments by screenwriter Paul Haggis and Martin Campbell that Bond in Casino Royale would be a rookie agent of just 28 years old.

The rumblings and rumours about Craig’s candidacy intensified throughout September and October until the Daily Mail announced on Monday that Craig had, indeed, landed the part. A flurry of unconfirmed press reports followed…ending today with Craig’s official appointment to Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

Bond fans have been split down the middle about Daniel Craig’s suitability for the part. Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. Fans advocating for Craig believe the actor would bring a new edge to the character, with many highlighting his physical likeness to Hoagy Carmichael, whom Ian Fleming said was his ideal model of how 007 should look. Other fans have been less enthusiastic, arguing the actor to be a far cry from the heretofore standard for the cinematic James Bond.

Daniel Craig was born in Chester, England in 1968. After growing up in Liverpool and moving to England, he joined the National Youth Theatre at the age of 16 and later secured a place at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama. In 1992 he made theatrical acting debut in the filmic adaptation of Bryce Courtenay’s The Power Of One. Craig’s filmography includes Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, Road To Perdition, The Jacket and his critically-acclaimed turn as an unnamed drug dealer in Layer Cake. He will next appear alongside Eric Bana and Geoffrey Rush in Steven Spielberg’s new film, Munich.

And in 2006, Daniel Craig will make his debut appearance as James Bond, 007 in Casino Royale.

Casino Royale will be the 21st James Bond film produced by the franchise holders, EON Productions. The MGM/Columbia Pictures production begins shooting in January and is due for release worldwide on November 17, 2006. It will be filmed in the Czech Republic, the Bahamas, Italy and the UK.

Click to view more photos from today’s event in the CBn ‘Casino Royale’ Gallery

Watch the full ‘Casino Royale’ press conference

Discuss the announcement we’ve all been waiting for in this thread on the CBn Forums, the largest James Bond forum on the internet.

Related Articles

• Bond #6: Is it Daniel Craig?
• Is Craig Close to Becoming 007?
• More Screentests Planned For New 007
• Craig’s ‘Casino’ Connections
• ‘Casino Royale’ Casting Clues
• LICENCE REVOKED

The CBn Forums Celebrate 4007 Members

CommanderBond.Net, the place for James Bond news and discussion, celebrates 4007 forum members today with nearly 400,000 posts!

With a remarkable 1000 new members registering in just three months, the CBn forum has experienced its most explosive growth since the site first went on line in 2001.

Congratulations to leon007 for being CBn’s 4007th member. As thanks, we will be sending leon007 a FREE Tomorrow Never Dies mini poster, courtesy of the CBn Team.

Not a member of the CBn forums yet? Simply register here. It’s free and it only takes a minute. Then join in on the fun!

Keep checking CBn for full and detailed coverage of Casino Royale, the Young Bond Series, EA’s From Russia With Love and all things Bond, James Bond.

CBn — Where all other Bond sites end…this one begins!

To discuss this milestone please visit this thread on the CBn Forums.

Sean Connery is BACK as Bond!

Exciting news! Sean Connery is BACK as James Bond! At least his VOICE is back.

CBn has confirmed that Sean Connery WILL be providing the voice of 007 in the new James Bond videogame from Electronic Arts, James Bond 007: From Russia With Love.

Some voice work for the game has already been completed in Los Angeles. Connery will be recording the full voice track in the Caribbean during the next few weeks.

Game Informer magazine recently ran 10 pages of coverage of the new EA Bond game, including the first pictures. CLICK HERE for CBn’s full coverage of that article.

CBn Reviews Young Bond Book 1: 'SilverFin'

Today CBn offers readers not one but three reviews of Young Bond Book 1: SilverFin by Charlie Higson. One review is by a 16-year-old Bond fan, another by a 40-year-old Bond fan and yet another from a 31-year-old Bond fan who is an old Etonian. Equal in their passions for 007, but clearly of three distinct perspectives. Does SilverFin reach all brand of James Bond fans? Read & find out:

SilverFin Will Hook You. A POSITIVE Review by Chris Wright SilverFin by Charlie Higson puts the pleasure in pleasure reading. It is one of the most enjoyable books I have ever read. I stayed up very late on many school nights reading it because I couldn’t put it down. [read more…]

But Is It A Good Bond Book? A MIXED Review by John Cox While Bond fans can certainly enjoy SilverFin as a well-written adventure book, they may have a slightly harder time embracing it as “A James Bond Adventure.” But… read this review to the end… there is a twist. [read more…]

Touchy. Feely. Eely. A PUZZLED review by Jacques Stewart Oh, what’s the point? I don’t appear to be the target audience so this review is subject to the obvious criticism that I might as well be reviewing the merits of kolkhoz subsistence or line dancing or rohypnol. [read more…]

To discuss these reviews visit this thread in the CBn forums.

Purchase the UK paperback edition of SilverFin

Purchase the SilverFin audio book

Pre-order the U.S. hardcover edition of SilverFin (April 27, 2005)

Pre-order the U.S. paperback edition of SilverFin (April 27, 2005)